bit challenging, and i know that for i guess a few years now, the port meters have -- which i wasn't aware of, i'm sorry, i don't know everything, i wasn't aware that the port meters were extended to the later evening hour and is locations in the port where meters are located, it's fairly dark, and i was just wondering, are there any plans, yes, clearly, they are going to be paying mta for these meters, but are there any plans that you're aware of that the port will provide appropriate lighting and signage to make it clear that in the evening hours when it is dark that meters are still required to be paid for the average person who may not be aware that that's the case. >> we've been working closely with the port of san francisco to try to better coordinate parking management generally and they do essentially contract the services up, they

make the policy decisions and they've been 7 days a week, i think 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. for many, many years, so we're more for them just an implementing agency, but as we get specific feedback about issues of signage or anything else, we do communicate and work with the port and we'd be happy to work with your office or the offices of the supervisors adjacent to the port for any ways that we can enhance the signage and the legibility, we'd much rather have people paying through the meter than through citations. >> okay. i'm sure everybody here who ran into an -- anyone else? nobody at the port? okay, just me? just me. okay. so, i'm happy to support this resolution because it doesn't extend locations for meters and that was my biggest concern. i didn't want us to just begin

placing meters all over the place, i'll wake up one morning and all of a sudden, two, three, four blocks in my neighborhood have meters and that's what most of my neighbors were concerned about and many of the e-mails that i received from constituents were concerned about expansions and not having the ability to participate in those expansions so i'm happy to see this has been amended and has made it clear that we're not talking about an extension, we're talking specifically about replacement repairs and it's outlined clearly in the resolution, so i really appreciate that. i'd like to mention that on a side note that money that these meters generate, whether it's a ticket, whether it's a payment or what have you help to pay for issues around transportation and we definitely need to make sure

that strategically, we're continuously placing meters in the best locations possible, but also the community outreach process is open and such that the folks that are mostly impacted by a change from non-meters to meters are a part of the process, and we don't necessarily go into the neighborhood with the plan to already place meters there, obtain the community and place the meter there anyway, so i want to make sure in moving forward that we are just being open-minded and understanding especially because i think we're kind of venturing out past the territory of commercial areas in places where meters were meant to be into residential areas where they should never be and i want to make sure we're not heading down that road and i appreciate the work that you've done, mr. ris k*in to not only move this forward, to work with

supervisor avalos to make the necessary changes to work this and to not expand the program, so thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. president. so, i'm glad this got resolved. i think, you know, there's been no concern about the placement of meters, especially in areas that would arguably be residential areas and i know it's caused concern with folks who are impacted by that, understanding that there are times when meters do make sense and in my district, there was one particular merchant's association that asked for a meter expansion because they thought there was a portion of their commercial district that was not covered appropriately by meters and meters do turn over in vehicle parking and mta rejected that request, so it's a more nuance issue than i

think people sometimes perceive, but this discussion is focused so much on the possibility and the concern about expansion but i think what's gotten lost in the shuffle is how positive this contract is in terms of what it's going to deliver to the city. my question is really -- i don't know, this took a long time to get here and i'm glad that we're here and we're going to actually have good meters throughout the city because most of the city now still has coin operated meters and it's really -- it makes it harder for people to pay. i know that when you transition to the credit card meters and the remote reloading meters, you end up increasing meter revenue and decrease ticket revenue and that's a positive thing. people can decide that they're

going to park and pay and they know what they're going the pay and they don't have to have sort of the anger that people -- and the surprise that people get when they get hit with the 75 or 90 dollar ticket, so i think this is long overdue, i'm glad that all of the meters, the coin meters as well as the original generation of credit card meters which have some issues are all going to be replaced with new technology. it's going the make it easier for people to park at meters, they're going to be able to quickly pay, they're not going to have to remember to carry quarters with them, they're going to be able to remotely reload the meters and this is going the improve the experience for people throughout the city and for people coming into the city. so, i guess a question, mr. ris k*en is when can we expect this roll-out to be complete, and i asked that partly in the context when i came into office

in january, 2011, the mta offered me one neighborhood, said you can pick one neighborhood to have credit card meters, we went with noly valley and i was told within a year or so, the rest of the district would be teetered with the new meters and that hasn't happened, if you could talk about the timing. >> yeah, sure, thank you. so, this has been a long process, it took us a long time to develop the request for a proposal because we wanted to make sure that all of the feedback we had gotten, particularly from some of our newer meters was incorporated and we're really pushing the parking meter industry, i think we're at the leader edge here in san francisco in term of making the technology work, particularly for the users. i believe the rfp was issued in january, it looks if we secure board approvalfinger we'll be basically issuing a notice to proceed probably next month, so december, the meter

installation would start early in 2014 and it's probably about a 12 month process, so it would be by the end of calendar year 2014 that all 25 thousand meters should be replaced. we do have a rough idea of how we would go about sequencing that and i don't have it with me. i would be happy to share that with the board. we would be starting with the older coin only meters first, which are generally further out and then working our way in. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee? >> thank you, president chiu. i just wanted to thank supervisor avalos for bringing these amendments forward and also for the budget committee working through this with director ris k*en. the amendments makes it -- i'll be supporting the amendments, it makes it clear what these

meters are for and like most of my colleagues, if not all, i'm concerned -- i would have been concerned if it were 10 thousand meters and not knowing where these meters would be placed, like some of my colleagues here, i don't want to be surprised one morning and wake up and there's like about a mile of meters in my district, and i also appreciate the flexibility of director ris k*en and all this and working with the board here. i also like supervisor wiener appreciate that we're going to move forward with this by using some of the modern technologies available to make it easier for the users to pay for their meters, so thank you very much. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, mr. president. i had a quick question, but

before i ask that question, i want to thank director ris k*en and his staff and my colleagues and in particular, supervisor avalos and his staff for the very i think balanced approach that they have taken. i think the changes make this item a better item, but i do have a question through the chair to our city attorney. in terms of the language around the additional 5 thousand single spaced meters, i'm wondering if the attorney can talk about how finding that language actually is on the mta. >> sure. deputy city attorney john gibner. the board is approving a contract that authorizes the mta to purchase the 5 thousand additional meters, so in that sense, that piece is binding mta may purchase 5 thousand for

optional meters. supervisor avalos' amendment includes an additional whereas clause that talks about the allocation of those meters, that is not binding on the mta, the mta has exclusive authority to determine how to allocate the meters, but the resolution reflects the board's understanding of the mta's intent at this time to allocate the meters in the way set forth in the resolution. er >> thank you. if i may then through the chair, if i can ask director ris k*en, and again, i support this item, i think the amendments that have been made make sense but given that the language that is i think the reason why so many of you are supporting this is not binding on the mta, i want to make sure i have a clear understanding that the mta as far as you know, as far as you're concerned, it's committed to making sure that you follow the

intent, the very expressed sbept that's imbedded in the resolution. inger >> yes, thank you for the question, and absolutely. i guess a couple of control points here, first of all, as i said with not to exceed amount of 5 thousand, that's what we believe we will need rally basically just to maintain the asset base that we have to deal with the routine maintenance needs, the retune replacement needs, the meters sometimes get vandalized, get hit by trucks, the 5 thousand really just enable us to do that plus keep a reserve for the port for their replacement. the second point of control which is to some extent moved at this point is the new smta board adopted policy with regard to outreach, so to the comments of i don't want to wake up and find a whole bufrnl of parking meters in my

district or my neighborhoods which nobody wants to be surprised by new parking meters, we have a process that would inhibit that from happening but ultimately as i said in answer to a previous question, with the limit of 5 thousand, we would not have the capacity within this contract to do anything other than very small kind of spot requests that go through that process that the sfmta board has adopted, so the spirit, i believe, of that whereas clause, the reality of what we need to maintain the meters that we have today, i feel very comfortable in assuring you that the sfmta will not be pursuing large meter expansions without having to come back for additional authority. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. ris k*en, i praoeshtd that.

er frnts supervisor kim? >> thank you, i wanted to follow up on that question to our city attorney, so is there anything -- you know, i hear director ris k*en's commitment. does this whereas clause bind sfmta to this allocation? i just wanted to clarify that question again? >> deputy city attorney, john gibner, no, it doesn't bind the sfmta to the allocation. the board through this contract approval cannot bind the mta's decision about where to place the meters but the whereas clause reflects the director's statements about the mta's expectations about how these meters will be used. >> okay. that's not very reassuring. i do have a couple of questions for the director though. so, i just wanted to clarify again, 25 thousand meters is the number of meters we currently have in the city today? >> yeah, i don't know the exact

number, it's roughly 25 thousand and that's the base contract. >> and when you said to supervisor cohen that this 5 thousand allotment would allow us to make -- to address small meters requests, when you say small meters requests, how many are you talking? >> well, i think the way we laid out in our outreach process, we had three different levels, 1 to 50, 51 to 100 and more than 100, we wouldn't be able to do -- we would be able to do very few of the small and we couldn't do probably any even as much as 50 meters if we only have a 5 thousand meter option, so we're really talking about very small, you know, 2 or 3, we have retailers where a situation where maybe what had been a red zone is no longer a red zone in a metered area and there would be a desire by that block to backfill that space in

a commercial area with a parking meter, that's something we would still go through this enhanced process, that's something we would be able to accommodate, but i don't see that within this level of optional meter availability within this contract that we would be able to do a 40 parking meter proposal. i think we would have to tell the requester of any such proposal that we would need to seek additional authority in order to accommodate that, to even consider that. >> you have three levels of size of meter requests, small being 1 to 50, medium being 50 to 100, did i hear that correctly, and then 100 to 150 would be large? >> yes, so those were -- that was how we tried to develop tiers of enhanced public notification, all of which are enhanced from what we had been doing. but again, it's somewhat mute if we don't have additional

meters to even be responsive to these requests. but that's what that bucketing was for, it was to trigger higher levels of public notification and outreach. >> so, again, when you had mentioned to supervisor cohen that our 5 thousand meter allocation would allow you to respond to small meter requests, is it 1 to 50? >> it would depend on what requestess and of what size. if we had, you know, a dozen requests for two meters here and there over the course of the 7 years, there's no question we could accommodate that. if we had single requests or multiple requests for 40, 50, 60 meters, we would not, so in newly developing neighborhoods or transitioning neighborhoods, we wouldn't accommodate those levels of request with the proposal that's before us. >> so, for me to feel comfortable supporting both the admen and the resolution, i

would just like clarity on what small meter requests means, so if you're saying a dozen two meter requests throughout the city, that's one thing, if a small meter request could go up to 50, to me, that's not a small meter request, so it would be great to understand what a small meter request really is, more than the answer that you just gave me. >> all i can tell you is it would depend where we are over the life of the contract, if we're 6 years in and we didn't need to do as much replacement as we thought we did because the level of vandalism or damage is down, we would have more capacity later on to accommodate larger requests. at this point, i think we'd be very reluctant to entertain requests of any significant size because this is a 7 year contract. we need to reserve these options so that we can manage our asset base over the life of the contract. >> so, if that's 5 or 6 years, we haven't had to replace a lot

of meters, we didn't get a lot of "small meter requests", we could accommodate a number of 40 to 60 meter requests? >> it's theoretically possible. >> okay. how many new meters have been installed in san francisco? i know we talked about this last week when we met over the last -- since 2011? >> yeah, and i apologize, i didn't bring that. i did ask my staff to generate that data, i think it was in the last couple of years, i think it's maybe 2

here. how many new meters were installed in mission bay, parking meters? >> that i don't know offhand. i think it was maybe a couple of hundred. >> and also since i've been in office i know a bafrp of meters came in, in the tenderloin, i don't know if there was outreach that happened in that area, i knower since i have been in office, there have been a significant increase in parking meters in our district, and certainly i hear it from our residents as well. okay. that's all of my questions. i'll just make a couple of comments. i will support the amendment

but i won't be able to support this contract today. i think that -- i don't think there's enough assurances that we won't see i think what many of us have been talking about is an expansion of meters into the neighborhoods that we represent, it seems clear that there's a lot of discretion here with the sfmta, even with the 5 thousand meters they're getting and while it might be unlikely that they will be able to install new meters, it's clear that they have the discretion and flexibility to later down the road and i think there has been a lot of consternation about how we do parking meter installation. i'm not opposed to parking meters, i think that there is a very valid argument as to the fact that we charge people from muni so we should charge people for parking. i think that we also generate revenue for sfmta, so all of those things are things that are arguments that i think are

good ones. what i would like to see from the sfmta while we were rolling out or considering meter expansion is that we also think about a revised residential parking permit eligibility requirement and in a lot of the neighborhoods that i represent that have traditionally been very mixed use but certain along the southeast sector in supervisor campos' sdrekt, we are creating new neighborhoods that don't look like twin peaks and we are always going to have office, residential and retail all on the same blocks and it makes a lot of our residents ineligible to apply for rpp even if there's a higher density of rez densest on those blocks because of the number of units we reer placing in those buildings, so i talked to director ris k*en about it, i know they're working on it, i think i need to see further commitment especially from what i hear from our residents, more

headway we make on revising the rpp process before we support parking meter expansion, a number of other issues that i brought up is that meters do start at 7 a.m., they start at 7 a.m. at the tenderloin, i want to look at -- i mean, how much revenue do we generate from that and do we penalize people that can't get rpp in the tenderloin and have to get up earlier to move their cars if fe have a car to get to work which is a lot of our working class family ins the tenderloin, how can we move meters back to 9 a.m. and how can we rethink that evening meters, that is something in the district that i represent, i guess we have the giant stadium, something that our meters are smart enough to be able to acknowledge and not -- that was something that, you know, was ignored during the outreach process, and by the

way, i think sfmta does amazing outreach, i think they do a great job of having meetings in our neighborhoods, i think it's a question of how that feedback is incorporated and i understand parking is going the continue to be a very controversial issue, i think it is a very tough one for many of us. i want to continue to have it but i would support a contract with the 25 thousand meters, i'm not sure i can support one that includes an additional 5 thousand. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. mr. president, i want to thank again the mta and my colleagues for the work that's been done on this item. i agree with what supervisor kim was saying in terms of the limitations of what this resolution has in terms of the board of supervisors' ability to impact how parking meters are placed by the mta and i

think that supervisor kim raises some very important points. that said, where i have a different take is that i do believe that within the confines of the current legal governance structure of the mta vis-a-vis the board of supervisors that this resolution goes as far as we can go and i think that to the extent that there are additional things that are needed including ways in which we can have more of a community process, i think that that actually requires changes to the existing law and how the mta's actually governed and i don't know if we can do that by way of a resolution, in fact, we know we can't, and so i will be supporting this contract because i do think that given the legal structure of the mta, that this is probably as far as the board of supervisors can

push, this resolution is not binding but i also know that -- well, first of all, i respect and trust that director ris k*en will follow the commitment that he has made, but if for some reason there's a failure to do that, there are many thing that is the mta has to come to this board and ask for, so there will be plenty of opportunity for us to inject ourselves where needed. that said, i do think we need to figure out a way of creating more transparency and community involvement around the decisions around parking meters. i think that that requires a larger conversation and i do hope that we engage in that larger conversation, but i think the language that has been introduced by supervisor avalos provides some at least, you know, i guess control in terms if you will by this board, so thank you. >> supervisor cohen?

>> thank you very much. a little bit off topic in terms of the contract at hand, but director ris k*en, i have a question for you, what is the rational that parking meters in japan town started at 9:00 and parking meters in tenderloin start at 7 p.m. >> so, my understanding is that when time limits and zones were established, they were done pretty roughly in terms of the kind of downtown areas, the parking meters zones that are currently in the transportation code and it was drawn from a very broad rush, subsequent to this discussion that i've had with supervisor kim, direct my staff to re-evaluate where that line is drawn. we earlier in response to an earlier inquiry about a different part of the downtown,

we did evaluate and identified, you know, we looked at the occupancy, we looked at the justification. i do think that there's a case for a later start in the tenderloin area given some of the residential nature, given the fact that commercial activity is not starting there for the most part at 7:00 in the morning, a lot of the parking regulation that is we have in the city have been in place for a long time and had not been i think systematically evaluated when i was at dpw, i felt the same with the street sweeping frequency, as supervisor kim's request, that's something we're looking at with respect to the tenderloin and with respect to the parking controls as i mentioned, we systematically or routinely respond to requests to re-evaluate yellow zone hours or whether something should be a yellow zone, it's a continuous process that we're

doing but we're particularly looking at the tenderloin start times right. >> so, that process you're talking about, you'll evaluate your policy, your staff will go through some kind of internal analysis but make recommendations to the mta commission and then the commission will adopt it? >> that's correct, for things that require mta board approval. i believe change in meter hours would -- so, that would be something that we would review, we'll discuss that with the supervisor in the community and should we have an agreeable situation, that's something we would recommend to the mta board and that would go through a public hearing first. er >> can you tell us where else in the city do our meters engage at 7 a.m.? >> i believe it's largely around van ness, soit's the northeast quadrant of the city. >> okay, thyo